Nope, never said that. I disagree with the idea that this is "usually done" however I have no objections to it's being done. Never did. My point is, and was that the source should be quoted in its original language.
-----Original Message----- From: David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Fri, Jul 29, 2011 11:26 am Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge On 29 July 2011 19:19, Dan Rosenthal <swatjes...@gmail.com> wrote: > Why can't you do both? Provide the original text in the original language in the citation, followed y a translation. Any bickering over the quality of the translation can be dealt ith through consensus on the talk page, while the original is still there for hose who want the original to do their own verification of the translation. his is what is usually done at present. Hence my boggling at Johnson's bizarre suggestion to overuse a rule to break usefuless to he reader. d. _______________________________________________ oundation-l mailing list oundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
